SAF SUES CHICAGO OVER GUN RANGE PROHIBITION ON 1A, 2A GROUNDS

[krucam]

NRA files Amicus in support of Plaintiffs in Ezell (SAF)!

Item 60-1 in the Docket

I applauded before reading but was reserving my feelings as I was wondering what they were trying to do here...strange bedfellows these NRA and SAF groups have been...

While SAF has really stayed out of any Scrutiny argument thus far in Ezell, even implying for this case that a decision on Scrutiny isn't required, this NRA Amicus is a full-bore argument to the Court for Strict Scrutiny.

 

[Maryland_Shooter]

They did not have to, DC and Chicago's banned failed even intermediate scrutiny (Heller states 'rational basis' is not appropriate). Now that we're getting into the details the scrutiny level is important.

I never liked those standards of review. IMO they are fashioned from whole cloth and have way too much wiggle room.

In any case, perhaps the RKBA will become solidified through so much precedent, even a 5-4 liberal majority would have a hard time undoing it

 

[krucam]

I never liked those standards of review. IMO they are fashioned from whole cloth and have way too much wiggle room.

In any case, perhaps the RKBA will become solidified through so much precedent, even a 5-4 liberal majority would have a hard time undoing it

Agreed...As time goes on, the Incorporated 2A will be harder to undo.

Hope I'm not derailing this thread...not my intent at all, just sayin' in advance...

Look at Roe v Wade (1973) and it's biggest challenge (1992) Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

In '92, 8 of the 9 Justices were (R) appointed, Thomas & Souter were newly appointed. Only 2 of the 9 Justices were declared supports of Roe v Wade. Many thought this was going to be a slam dunk in overturning Roe v. Wade. It wasn't, but it did tone down some elements of Roe.

 

[Maryland_Shooter]

Agreed...As time goes on, the Incorporated 2A will be harder to undo.

Hope I'm not derailing this thread...not my intent at all, just sayin' in advance...

Look at Roe v Wade (1973) and it's biggest challenge (1992) Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

In '92, 8 of the 9 Justices were (R) appointed, Thomas & Souter were newly appointed. Only 2 of the 9 Justices were declared supports of Roe v Wade. Many thought this was going to be a slam dunk in overturning Roe v. Wade. It wasn't, but it did tone down some elements of Roe.

Well we are headed in the right direction. BHO needs to go and we need a pro-RKBA appointments to the Court.

I dread the day Scalia leaves. He is my favorite. Used to ride the subway with his rifle to school IIRC, as he was a shooter in competition.

I saw him speak at UoB when I was a student there. Awesome.

 

[Patrick]

This "scrutiny" test is hogwash and IIRC, the Supremes didn't go down that road in the recent RKBA cases.

Gura agrees with you and has specifically said in a few of his briefs in different cases that they are not asking for a scrutiny call. The big exception is an Amicus he filed in Nordyke.

We use the term here somewhat loosely. Gura has pointed out that neither Heller nor McDonald defined or relied on "scrutiny", though they did remove some of the lower levels from the table.

The "standards-based" analysis is a construct of the 20th Century, and as such justices who tend to be more "originalist" in stance tend to avoid it. That said, even Scalia signed onto Substantive Due Process in McDonald. I think standards-based reviews are important to many courts and to non-originalist justices (I dare not suggest these are liberal or progressive justices, because not all conservatives think alike).

Eventually we'll need it to simplify things in future cases. As Krucam points out, it is a strong signal and for those that worship precedent more than the constitution...it is binding dogma.

 

[krucam]

I'm hearing (calguns.net) that there WAS a Preliminary Injunction Hearing last Friday and that the PI hearing ran long and was to be continued into today...

I knew something was missing, even with the NRA Amicus and response to motions on 9/28, etc...it's hard to filter out the noise sometimes...

I'll take a peek and see what's out there in a few hours...

 

[Patrick]

My guess: witnesses. Gura filed a brief complaining that Chicago was trying to turn a "half day hearing" into a full-blown trial, complete with witnesses and fact-findings.

Chicago is doing everything it can to muddy the waters. The only way they can do this is to keep the case from staying a "fact of law" issue. For its part, the SAF has stipulated they are not arguing over zoning rules. They just want a ruling on the constitutional issues.

And realistically, no court wants to be the court of "first impression" on these cases. It may look good to those of us out here, but the workload (appeals, etc.) is probably quite high. Easier to let someone else do it for you and then just agree.

But some of these cases are really dying for a ruling. Nordyke...Palmer...Sykes...this one in Chicago is really just a baby compared to them. Of course, I think we can expect some courts (Palmer) to go back to the board and delay the whole thing with calls for more oral and written arguments, just like the Ninth is doing in Nordyke.

But the Circuit is about as far as they can go without some ruling. So time is running short for the Ninth with Nordyke.

 

[krucam]

Confirmed...PI hearing held Fri and continued to today. No ruling/documents on the PI available yet...

Doc 64 was just recapped and should be available on the Docket shortly...in summary:

10/01/2010 64 MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall. Preliminary Injunction hearing held on 10/1/2010 and continued to 10/4/2010 at 09:30 AM.Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 10/04/2010)

 

[krucam]

I'm hearing that Judge Kendall is still deliberating Plaintiff's motion for Preliminary Injunction. The 1 hour hearing which started Friday, went into Monday and now Tuesday...

Patrick probably has it right where Chicago is turning this hearing into a trial by throwing in witnesses, statements, fact-finding...

Nucking Futz...assuming it is the Defendants.


EDIT: Item 66 on the docket:

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, October 4, 2010:
MINUTE entry before Honorable Virginia M. Kendall Preliminary Injunction
hearing held on 10/4/2010. The Court will rule by mail.Advised in open court notice(tsa, )

 

[Patrick]

Just saw that item myself.

Had no idea it went that long. Damn. I was wrong in a previous posting - the judge DID allow testimony from a zoning person. That cannot be good.

I love this part: "The Court will rule by mail."

Talk about anti-climactic.

 

[krucam]

Just saw that item myself.

Had no idea it went that long. Damn. I was wrong in a previous posting - the judge DID allow testimony from a zoning person. That cannot be good.

Any way to sticky just a single post?

I love this part: "The Court will rule by mail."

Talk about anti-climactic.

Talk about not being very time-sensitive in this time-sensitive case...bad vibes here....

 

[Oreo]

Just pondering wild possibilities here... seeing as how the AG readily used intimidation techniques on the plaintiff's business partners, I wonder what the odds are that the state could be using intimidation techniques on the judge or judge's family / friends / business partners in order to sway the opinion of the court. I wouldn't put it past them.

 

[Patrick]

Any way to sticky just a single post?

The "Damn" part wasn't about me being wrong - it was about how long it took. But now that I think of it...Damn, I was wrong. Sorry for looking past that little fact in the judges order, guys.

Talk about not being very time-sensitive in this time-sensitive case...bad vibes here....

Yeah, nothing like "mailing it in" on a civil rights issue. We'll see.

Just pondering wild possibilities here... seeing as how the AG readily used intimidation techniques on the plaintiff's business partners, I wonder what the odds are that the state could be using intimidation techniques on the judge or judge's family / friends / business partners in order to sway the opinion of the court. I wouldn't put it past them.

Chicago of old, maybe. It's still a corrupt place, but that kid of intimidation sends people to jail for a very long time. Chicago Pols have gone to jail for much, much less than messing with a Federal Judge. I doubt anyone in that city really cares about the implications of the decision; it's more about maintaining the status quo and their power. I don't see them willing to risk big pensions or their freedom to upset a bunch of 2A guys.

But...see NY:Spitzer for the epitome of dumb. Then again, isn't he getting paid big bucks to opine on cable TV? And we do it for free on the Internet?

Maybe we're the dumb ones?

 

[swinokur]

The "Damn" part wasn't about me being wrong - it was about how long it took. But now that I think of it...Damn, I was wrong. Sorry for looking past that little fact in the judges order, guys.

You're fired.

Krucam it's on you now

 

[krucam]

You're fired.

Krucam it's on you now

I just search, post and put my .02 in there. Patrick puts in a quarter's worth...he can keep "that" job...

 

[swinokur]

 

[Patrick]

Two bits is still only two bits, and everyone underestimates their own opinions. I'm just comic relief.

 

[krucam]

One of the sages at Calguns chimed in: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=336622&page=4

Got a report from the scene.

1. Judge is skeptical that we have irreparable injury (which is one of the four key things you have to have to win a Preliminary Injunction.) It's very clear in 1A case law that a law that violates a fundamental right is by definition an irreparable injury, but the Judge here seems skeptical.

2. However, she buys none of Chicago's arguments and all but laughed at their defense of their law. As such, on the merits it appears she agrees that Chicago can not ban ranges while requiring them to own a handgun in Chicago.

We may not win the PI, but it looks like we'll win the war.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation - Member, CRPA Board of Directors

 

[Patrick]

An odd split. By denying the PI she would essentially be punting the whole case. That would leave this matter to the NRA case, which is where Chicago wanted it all along because of the supposed anti-2A leanings of the judge.

So we might get a feel-good from this judge, but those arguments will not sway the other justice much. He can shoot down the entire NRA case (including the gun range ban), at least until the 4th Circuit to weighs in.

So in practical matters...little to nothing gained if that PI is denied.

Realistically, Gura probably already wrote the bulk of his motion for Emergency Temporary Restraining Order to the 4th Circuit already. They might be more receptive.

 

[Gray Peterson]

An odd split. By denying the PI she would essentially be punting the whole case. That would leave this matter to the NRA case, which is where Chicago wanted it all along because of the supposed anti-2A leanings of the judge.

So we might get a feel-good from this judge, but those arguments will not sway the other justice much. He can shoot down the entire NRA case (including the gun range ban), at least until the 4th Circuit to weighs in.

So in practical matters...little to nothing gained if that PI is denied.

Realistically, Gura probably already wrote the bulk of his motion for Emergency Temporary Restraining Order to the 4th Circuit already. They might be more receptive.

After this, an MSJ could be in the cards. A lot of the discovery is already pretty much done. Again, rampant speculation.